Graham Klyne wrote:
> I agree that "no formal inference path" might include non-RDF
> inferences, and that one might define 'B:oneOfThem' in such a way that
> there is a formal inference.
>
> But, in this case, I think the use of English text in an rdfs:comment
> to convey the intended meaning makes any formal inference path rather
> unlikely.
Hmmm ... it seems to me that the formal axioms for both rdfs and daml
have always been expressed in English rdfs:comment(s) and English
descriptions in specification documents. What's the difference between
transcribing those into an axiom used in a formal computer inference and
translating "This means the same as rdfs:subClassOf" into {B:oneOfThem
daml:equivalentTo rdfs:subClassOf}? There is no difference.
Behind my quibble is a very important major question. Will the culture
of the semantic web embrase the idea that people can coin their own
terms defining them with formal languages based on previously defined
RDF terms? Those new terms then become part of the language of the
semantic web if they gain popular usage just as words become part of our
natural languages culture. The inference paths on those terms *are
just as formal* as the inference paths on terms that are exclusively
defined in the rdf, rdfs, daml, and owl namespaces; the only difference
is that the latter is recommended by the W3C and the former is not.
Is the W3C really in the business of recommending how we should reason?
I think not.
http://robustai.net/papers/Monotonic_Reasoning_on_the_Semantic_Web.html
Seth Russell